State v. Milenius, 2014 Ohio 3585

Defendant Efrain Milenius pled guilty to gross sexual imposition and attempted felonious assault pursuant to a plea agreement and was referred for presentence investigation.
Victim testified she developed anxiety, panic attacks, high blood pressure and heart problems after the October 30, 2012 incident and submitted medical bills totaling $22,451.95 to the court.
The prosecutor identified $4,345.25 in emergency-room charges from the day of the incident and over $11,000 in subsequent hospitalization/treatment the victim attributed to post‑incident conditions.
Defense counsel and Milenius told the court that Milenius had a full‑time job waiting for him if released to community control.
The trial court sentenced Milenius to community control, a $500 fine, court costs, and ordered $9,947 in restitution, finding he was not indigent and would have ability to pay.
Milenius appealed, arguing (1) the restitution amount exceeded the victim’s economic loss and (2) the court failed to conduct a proper hearing and did not properly determine his present or future ability to pay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the restitution ordered exceeded the victim’s economic loss	State argued medical bills and victim testimony supported restitution as reasonably related to loss	Milenius argued restitution exceeded economic loss and some bills were not causally linked or potentially covered by insurance	Court held restitution ($9,947) was supported by documentary and testimonial evidence and did not exceed the victim’s economic loss
Whether the court properly considered defendant’s present and future ability to pay	State argued counsel’s and defendant’s statements that a job awaited him supported the court’s finding he was not indigent and could pay	Milenius argued the court never made a specific finding about ability to pay restitution and its comments referred only to court costs; requested remand for proper inquiry	Court held the record contained evidence (defense and defendant statements) that the court considered ability to pay, so no separate hearing was required and no abuse of discretion occurred

State v. Marbury, 104 Ohio App.3d 179 (1995) (restitution review for abuse of discretion and need for due‑process ascertainment that restitution reasonably relates to loss)
State v. Gears, 135 Ohio App.3d 297 (1999) (restitution must be supported by competent, credible evidence to a reasonable degree of certainty)
State v. Brumback, 109 Ohio App.3d 65 (1996) (no separate restitution hearing required when record contains sufficient evidence to substantiate loss)
State v. Lalain, 136 Ohio St.3d 248 (2013) (restitution cannot exceed economic loss that is the direct and proximate result of the offense)